And I agree. The two DA* lenses are a great pair for wedding coverage.
Paul
On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I didn't see the information that a specific request was made until
after my post. So for that, I can see the need. From a practical
perspective, I stand by what I said.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, March 6, 2009, 7:54:31 AM, you wrote:
WR> ----- Original Message -----
WR> From: "Bruce Dayton"
WR> Subject: Re: Damage Waiver for Lens Rental?
When I was shooting film for weddings, I had the fisheye zoom. I
found it to be useful for about 2 or 3 shots in the whole wedding.
And if I had not shown those images, the client wouldn't have
noticed.
These days, shooting digital APS-C, the 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8 are
the perfect pair for focal length and size to do weddings. The old
70-200/2.8's are
big and heavy and difficult to hand hold for long periods of time.
I rarely have need or desire to go wider than 16mm rectilinear when
shooting weddings. I side with Paul that if you don't have the
16-50/2.8,
rent it instead of the fisheye. You'll use it about 200:1
compared to
the fisheye.
WR> For myself, I have yet to use a fisheye at a wedding but....
WR> The OP says she has a specific use for the thing, what's the
problem with
WR> respecting that need?
WR> For myself, I still shoot primes at weddings, I just can't seem
to bring
WR> myself to shoot with slow zoom lenses.
WR> William Robb
WR> --
WR> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
WR> [email protected]
WR> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
WR> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly
above and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
